Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Veterans Benefits Solid Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Municipal leaders urge opt-in approach as committee hears proposal to waive garbage fees for veterans on only-veterans income
Summary
At a public hearing on SB32, Senator Kitchens said the bill would allow veterans whose sole income is veterans benefits to receive an exemption from municipal solid-waste fees. The Alabama Municipalities representative urged cities be allowed to opt in because the bill lacks a clear fiscal estimate; the Southern Poverty Law Center offered a statewide estimate of roughly 22,000–23,000 people who could be affected.
Senator Kitchens introduced SB32 and described it as a narrowly targeted bill to allow residents whose sole source of income is veterans benefits to qualify for an exemption from municipal solid-waste collection fees.
"All this bill does is it adds veterans as their sole source of income and allows them to get a exemption on that," Senator Kitchens said, introducing the measure and explaining it grew from a constituent case dating back decades.
Baker Allen, director of governmental affairs for Alabama Municipalities, told the committee the league opposes SB32 as written because it would require municipalities to provide free solid-waste service to people whose only income is veterans benefits and the bill lacks a clear fiscal note. "As written, SB32 requires a municipality to provide free solid waste to individuals whose sole source of income is veteran benefits," Baker Allen said, and the league asked that the bill be amended to permit cities to opt in to any local program so costs would not automatically fall on every municipality.
Jerome De, policy director for the Southern Poverty Law Center, spoke in support. He provided an estimate of the likely statewide impact: "estimates is between about 22 to 23,000 individuals," noting approximately 8 percent of the state's population are veterans and that parsing how many receive only veterans benefits was challenging.
Committee members asked questions about verification and scope: sponsors said the bill includes verification language to determine when veterans benefits are a person's only income, and that surviving spouses with no other income would be eligible under the proposal. The committee did not take a vote; members said the item will be discussed again at an additional meeting scheduled for tomorrow.
Because testimony and questions focused primarily on fiscal impacts and verification procedures, the committee signaled further work would be needed before any floor action.
